Atomic Monsters Are Attacking Tokyo!

Book Review - the Road

2007-08-10T09:20:00.000-05:00

Father and son go for walk through post-apocalyptic America. Father and son avoid cannibals, retain basic humanity, almost starve a couple of times. Father dies, son is found by Grizzly Adams and Missus Adams. Happiest ending possible in a world where everyone will be dead in a few years as the atmosphere becomes unbreathable (there are no plants left, after all).

This is one of the more over hyped books I've read in a while. Although there are some nicely written passages, overall, I found this to be a tedious read, with uninteresting characters, a needlessly annoying writing style (it is odd, eccentric, semi-grammatical, which would be fine if this were first person or in the form of a journal; as it is is, it makes the "god narrator" seem like he needs some ESL courses) and a recycling of standard tropes of post-apoc literature.

I guess, if this is your first exposure to the genre, cannibal clans, whacked out survivors, burned out cities, fortuitous bunkers full of food, etc might seem fresh and exciting. They are not.

Well, it is a quick read (assuming you can plow through 50,000 different descriptions of our heros sitting around in the rain) and it is not like you'll catch Ebola from the book. So, if you have an hour or two to kill, there are worse ways. Just don't expect very much.

Book Review - World War Z

2007-08-07T12:23:00.000-05:00

It's George Romero meets Studs Terkel. Yep, "World War Z" follows the pattern of Terkel's "The Good War", a classic oral history of World War Two.

Brooks sticks with the format and uses it to good effect. The narrative is compose of about 40 'interviews' and, for the most part, they have distinct voices. Further, Brooks uses little devices - such as footnotes - to enhance the verisimilitude of the book.

However, there are a few glaring problems. First, Brooks makes clear allusions to real-world figures but does not name them. That serves to break the fourth wall. Also, a few of the stories either go on too long - particularly one that is "Bat21" with zombies - or are even too unrealistic for a book about a global plague of flesh eating ghouls. This is particularly evident in a story about a blind Japanese swordsman who appears to be a homage to Zatoichi. While a horror novel like this require a hefty dose of suspending disbelief, when the internal rules seem to be 'real world with zombies' anything that breaks that rule will stand out.

But, these are really minor points. The book reads like the kind of movie(s) a fan of NOTLD/DOTD would want to see...rather than Romero's last offering Land of the Dead.

Highly recommended.

Movie Review - Satan's Playground

2007-07-26T20:22:00.000-05:00

If one was to look through my movie collection (topping the 3000 mark) one would find more than one film that would qualify as...well...cheesy. Super-Inframan...The Horrors of Spider Island...Invasion of the Bee Girls...The Devil's Rain...but even the worst film I have, has some sort of charm (well, maybe not The Incredible Petrified World).

Except, that is, for one of my latest acquisitions, Satan's Playground, I picked this up based on the premise (it is, in part, about the Jersey Devil and I have a thing for American folklore) and some of the reviews I had read. It sounded like low-budget horror, but that can be very entertaining.

Unfortunately, repeatedly jamming a pen in my eye would have been more enjoyable than the 2 hours...or was it two years...I wasted with this movie.

The acting...the filming...the directing...the script...the mishmash of horror movie cliches...there is absolutely nothing right with this film. It doesn't even have either a cracked sense of earnestness (check out some of Ed Wood's movies for examples) or at least a sense of fun.

Even writing this much about the movie is too much. So, do yourself a favor and avoid this movie like the plague.

Splattery Goodness

2006-10-03T10:32:00.000-05:00

Yay, it's October! My favorite month and the time of my favorite holiday (Halloween).

So, to kick off the horror season, I watched a trio of fright flicks this weekend: Friday the 13th, Wolf Creek and Hard Candy.

Coming from a horror fan, it might sound odd, but I have never seen Friday the 13th before this weekend. I've seen some of the sequels, but just never got around to watching the original. Of course, I was familiar with it, as a trend setting movie (the real parent of the splatter sub-genre - films like Chainsaw and Halloween had very little gore and were, in my opinion, far more effective as thrillers; movie like Friday are more exercises in special effects and creative killing).

So, when I final got around to popping in the DVD, I was expecting, well, something more than I saw. The movie isn't bad (although the print used for the DVD seemed pretty murky...although, this may have been how the film originally looked), but just lacked any...well, oomph. Of course, for the time, I can see why it was seen as groundbreaking; but there is little tension and the characters are completely unmemorable. Am I glad I saw it? Well, as a film buff yes, I am. But, if I feel in the mood for a good, gory movie, I will not be popping Friday into the DVD player any time soon.

Much better - although not without some glaring flaws - is Wolf Creek. I won't bother with a synopsis; that's what IMDB is for.

Instead, I'll say that the victims (heroes really doesn't fit) are reasonable well drawn, not being completely one-dimensional. And the villain is pretty creepy. The Australian locations are fairly alien looking (although, to a city boy, seeing more than four trees together seems other-worldly) and lend to an aura of menace. And, the gore effects are well-done (this is a splatter movie, after all).

However, there are some odd plot holes (there are hints that something supernatural is going on, but that is never really explored) that could have been fascinating if explored, particularly given Australia's past (penal colony) and the native culture (with its myths of Dreamtime).

And, the characters exhibit all the horror movie cliches - splitting up, not killing the villain when they have the chance, wasting time and allowing the villain to catch them, etc. Even some of the set-pieces have been done before, and better (a mine full of body parts, for example).

Also, come may find the ending a downer - although it could have worked a bit better if the supernatural angle had been developed and explored.

It is not a film for the squeamish, but it is not bad, as far as the genre goes.

And finally, the best of the films - Hard Candy. This is not a horror film, per se. It is more of a psychological thriller and a revenge flick and, possibly, something of a ghost story, a la High Plains Drifter. Basically, a pedophile, rapist and murderer (or at least accessory to both) - played with immense charm by Patrick Wilson - meets his match in a 14-year-old played by Ellen Page, who comes across like a mix between an angel and Hannibal Lector.

I really don't want to give any more of the story away. I will say this is one of the most psychologically brutal films I've seen in a while, that is brilliantly acted, that the cinematography (with lots of sweaty, claustrophobic close-ups) is beautiful...essentially, the only real problem is with some of the narrative leaps made. Again, without giving to much of the story away, it will be hard to go into them. But, let's just say, there is a lot of suspension of disbelief involved in accepting everything Haley (the Ellen Page character) is able to do and plan for...unless, one looks at her as more of an avenging spirit, come to see that justice is done for a heinous crime.

Even if one just accepts that the flaws in the narrative come from poor plotting, the force of the acting and the harrowing nature of the narrative are going to be enough to keep most viewers (me included) riveted to the screen.

Anyway, so all I don't feel bad about spending time watching these films. Friday was a good viewing just as a film buff, although I don't think there is much point in revisiting it (unlike, say Halloween). Wolf Creek is one of the better survival horror movies of the last few years, although I think the writer/director missed out a great opportunity to make it a bit more of a supernatural horror film by exploring some of the aboriginal myths and by being saddled with too many horror film cliches. And finally, hard Candy is just a marvelous movie. Yes, it has some plotting problems and a few moments are a bit heavy-handed, particularly near the end (the "confessions" of Patrick Wilson in the last few minutes of the movie - particularly when he admits to himself that he is a killer at heart - lack the sly and subtle touch of the rest of the movie.

So, I would say Friday gets a 'C', Wolf Creek a 'B' and Hard Candy an 'A'.

Movie Review - Pulse

2006-08-13T17:34:00.000-05:00

Last night, after a marvelous meal of cheese ravioli with a olive oil based vegetable sauce (courtesy of your humble author) and equally marvelous raspberry vodka tonics (courtesy of the GOP Baby, my own personal bar...tendress?) we decided to go to the late show of Pulse. Pulse is based on the J-horror flick Kairo, which I have yet to see (although it will be part of my collection in time for the annual Halloween moviefest; this year's theme, international horror movies).

So, at 2230, we made our way to the local cinema - conveniently located across the street -and settled in to the moderately comfy chairs. The trailers were unimpressive - The Wicker Man, in particular looks like pure manure; one should never try to remake a great movie (which the original is) and muck it up as the team responsible for the remake obviously has - and by the time the film started, I was ready for some cheap thrills.

Well, it 'kind-of' delivers.

First, the good. Although the director made the unfortunate decision to shoot the who friggin' movie through a blue filter, the Romanian locations make for a suitably depressing urban environment. There is some very disturbing/impressive imagery (I really liked a scene - although it is a tad overused - in which a gray, impassive apartment building has single, blood red window set in it), the ghosts are creepy (at least, at first) and some of the apocalyptic images at the end really work to convey the sense of a world gone mad. And, the sound effects are well done, using a kind of ambient electronic noise to good affect.

Second, the bad. Everything else. The acting is adequate, I suppose. The scares are the cheapest kind (things jumping out a people and the like). Rather than disturbing, they rely on the usual human reaction to a loud noise and sudden movement; we jump in our seats. The ending starts by having a nice "the world is at an end" and then mucks it up with an illogical "ghosts run the cities, humans everything else" voice-over, which betrays the oppressive tone the story was aiming for. Characters are mostly stereotypes who follow the horror movie "rules" to a fault...which is not surprising, given that Wes Craven was one of the writers. Plot holes abound (e.g.; the ghosts can't pass through anything covered by red tape. Well, how did anyone think of using red tape to repulse ghosts in the first place? It is never explained) most of which could have been covered pretty easily with a little more care in the writing. Part of the problem, I think, stems from the attempt to tack on a pseudo-scientific explanation to the ghost invasion. If it had just been "ghosts are using our comm system to enter the world" the inherent vagueness would have actually helped in the suspension of disbelief. However, when a story offers a partial explanation, that leads the consumer of the narrative to ask "well, if 'a', then why not 'b' and 'c'"? These kinds of questions are all over the place in the film.

A ghost story is inherently irrational, even more so than some other genre fare. Ghost stories lend themselves to moody, emotional plots and tones, not a hack sci-fi explanation. While this can be done well - The Legend of Hell House comes to mind - Pulse is not an example of this.

So, I guess I would say see it, but only if you are not paying full price for the ticket.

Or, just wait for the uncut version to come out on DVD; the movie is PG-13 and some of the cuts seem obvious.

technorati tags: pulse, kiora

The Lady In The Water

2006-08-02T09:21:00.000-05:00

Well, I saw The Lady in the Water this weekend. The GOP Baby and I had wanted to see A Scanner Darkly, but had become otherwise occupied and didn't hit the local theater until late Saturday night. So, the pickings were slim.

I really don't like Shyamalan's films. While the concepts are often interesting - particularly the 'everyman superhero' idea in Unbreakable - the execution is weak. The worst thing about his movies is the pacing. The plot films move at a glacial speed. This can be a good thing if the plot demands it or if the payoff is worth the wait (for example, the film See the Sea uses a slow pace to develop a sense of unease and delivers a real jolt at the end of the movie that makes said pacing worthwhile). He also likes to populate his films with willfully strange characters and hard-to-swallow plot points (the water obsessed little girl in Signs and the aliens from the same who just happen to be allergic to H₂O, leading one to ask why they would come to a planet that is covered with water to kidnap creatures who are mostly made up of water). And, the 'lessons' his movies teach are so banal, that one wonders if his attempts at having a message are some sort of subtle in-joke.

That said, his films usually look nice and I do admire his ability to keep getting funding.

With the Lady in the Water, he continues to the trend of slow, ultimately dull and pointless movies, populated by characters who are so bizarre that one's suspension of disbelief is impossible to maintain. Oh, and the main "villain" looks like a very angry piece of shrubbery.

Basically, a water nymph comes to an apartment building to inspire a writer (Shyamalan). However, she is being stalked by the evil shrub and has to rely on the building super and a collection of borderline bipolar cases to help her achieve her goal and return home. Oh, and they are evil, law enforcing super-monkeys in the trees. Yes, you read that correctly.

Plot holes abound, the biggest being that everyone just accepts the water nymph as being, well, a water nymph. Why? Well, because they are insane, I guess. No one comes across as anything other than a collection of odd tics and quirks, so much so that I can't see how any more-or-less normal viewer could identify with them.

The monster never seems very threatening and our main hero (Paul Giamatti) is so pathetic and yet cliched (see, he's a building super, who once was a doctor who left the practice because his wife and children were killed and he couldn't cope with the loss and...oh, God, who cares...) that he becomes more irritating than anything else. And, not to sound too shallow, but a doughy, balding guy does not make a good fairy tale/mythological hero.

In short, this a long, tedious movie, with a inane message (we all have special gifts and violence is bad...dude, that is so deep), characters who are both strange and boring and a non-existent menace. Stay far, far away from it.

Must Review More Movies...Like This.

2006-07-03T19:26:00.000-05:00

I'm not certain why I've been so bad about keeping up this page. I manage to update my other sites - Kinshasa on the Potomac and Link-O-Rama - on a daily basis. But, even though I love movies, pop culture and the rest, it seems harder to find the time or energy to post something worth reading.

Ah well, perhaps I just need to redouble my efforts...or change my format, to make things more interesting for me...

Hmmmm...this requires some thought.

In the meantime, I do have a review and recommendation for The Night Watch. This is a Russian movie, which follows the exploits of a group of grungy, moderately kick-ass, supernatural bureaucrats (essentially). Set in modern day Moscow, The Night Watch is full of vampires, shapeshifters, magic users, animated dolls, precognitive video games, and lots of crows. Lots of crows.

Anyway, Our Hero is a procog who works for Night Watch, keeping the forces of darkness in check and fully licensed (it would take a product of post-Commie Russia to have vampires needing to fill out forms before they can bite someone). These good "Others" - as those who are part of the supernatural world are called - are in turn monitored by the evil "Daywatch" (no slow-motion Pam Anderson shots, unfortunately).

The story kind of goes on, stuff happens, it all involves much drama and not a lot of sense. However, the movie is pretty and there is a sense...well...solidity to the world created. While the plot doesn't completely gel, the background does. and, since this is the first part in a trilogy perhaps setting up an engaging world that the story can play out against is enough.

The film is worth watching, but I recommend viewing it at least twice. I found that on a second viewing, parts that I had glossed over made more sense.

Unlike this review. Sigh.

Ah, time for another gin and tonic, I think.

technorati tags: night watch

Original Star Wars Coming To DVD

2006-05-05T11:11:00.000-05:00

If I had to pick one movie from my childhood that will always stay with me, it would be Star Wars. As a kid, I saw the movie 13 times during its first run. The first two sequels were pretty good. The more recent films...well, they were nice technology demonstrators.

When the Special Editions came out in late-90s, I went to see them and was overcome by a sense of "eh" (insert me shrugging shoulders). I didn't get as worked up as some fans - these are Lucas' movies, after all; he can do what he wants with them - I also didn't see how any of his changes improved things. And, some of them, like Greedo shooting at Han first, changed the narrative for the worse.

So, when the Special Editions came out on DVD, with the announcement that the original films would never be released, I felt a twinge of disappointment, and held onto my VHS tapes of the movies.

That however, has changed. This from DVD Review;

Believe it or not, but our friends over at The Digital Bits have just been able to confirm that the original theatrical cuts of the first Star Wars films are making it to DVD this summer! Remember, these are the films that George Lucas reworked and wanted everyone to forget about. However since many fans were repeatedly asking for these original theatrical cuts, Lucasfilm has actually created DVD versions of the films and will release them later this year.
This is no joke and has been confirmed by a number of industry sources now. Even the release date has surfaced and indicated that the release is scheduled for September 12. The films will be sold separately and each comes as a 2-disc DVD version that also includes the reworked Special Edition cut. The DVDs will be available for a limited time only and will disappear from retail shelves on December 31.

Well, I for one am happy to see this. So, let the pre-ordering begin!

Hostel: Is It Worth The Visit?

2006-04-28T08:52:00.000-05:00

I saw Hostel this week, Eli Roth's follow-up to Cabin Fever. I really enjoyed the later film. I found it an enjoyable mix of splatter and humor. Even the gore was so over-the-top that you couldn't help but laugh. There nice, bizarre touches ("Pancakes!") and the protagonists were generally likable, even if one-dimensional. Of course, Cabin Fever is about a group of college friends going into the woods and coming down with a flesh eating virus, so I was expecting a whole lot of depth.

So, over all, entertaining, although not for the squeamish.

Hostel, on the other hand, takes one part of the Cabin Fever idea (extreme gore) and forgets the humor and likeable characters parts.

The basic plot is that two Americans and an Icelander are in Amsterdam to take drugs and get laid. They find that Amsterdam is expensive and full of tourists (the funniest line in the movie; "Don't any Dutch people live here?"). They then hear about a town in Eastern Europe where the women are both beautiful and willing. They head there and find that, while that part is true, the whole town is really devoted to one "industry"; providing foreign tourists to sick, rich bastards to torture and kill. Wackiness ensues.

The idea is pretty good - a 'Most Dangerous Game' variant. And, some of the execution (pardon the pun) is also noteworthy. The opening credits, for example, roll over a disturbing sequence in which one of the torture chambers is being cleaned out. You don't really see anything - just a bloody chair, grimy walls and 'chunky' blood going down a drain. But, the scene does set a nasty, disturbing tone.

Unfortunately, such moments are few. The gore effects - the main draw for movie like this - are okay, but nowhere near as cringe inducing as, say, the shaving scene from Cabin Fever (if you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about; if not, think about the worst accident you could have while shaving your legs (the character is female). Now, turn that up to 11.). And, since the characters are so bland, who really cares what is happening to them?

Basically, the film is a mess. The plot seems to take forever to get going (although, since part of that time is taken up with extended boob shots - there is a lot of nudity in the movie - I'm not complaining that much). The scale of the torture club's operation itself is a bit hard to swallow. These guys seem to be going through dozens of tourists a day. Wouldn't that show up on someone's 'radar screen' eventually? Character motives are muddled, with one person, who manages to escape, rushing back into the torture center to rescue someone he doesn't even know. If the character had, had earlier development as someone who might do that, okay; but he does not. And, the gore effects, while competently handled, are nothing special. And, given that this was one of the selling points of the movie, that is a problem.

Bottom line: Without characters one cares about, graphic violence is disturbing; it is just an exercise in latex appliances and fake blood. Hostel has a few good moments, but is neither entertaining, nor particularly frightening.

technorati: hostel, cabin fever

Happy Birthday, Roger Corman

2006-04-05T02:46:00.000-05:00

Let me just list a few movies:

The Masque of the Red Death
The Haunted Palace
Little Shop of Horrors
Attack of the Crab Monsters
It Conquered the World
X
The Big Doll House
Death Race 2000
Piranha
Battle Beyond the Stars

These, and hundreds of other films, were either directed or produced by a man who could be rightfully called the "King of the B Movies," Roger Corman. Any fan of the science fiction, horror or exploitation genres has seen dozens of his movies. Heck, any kid who turned on the Ghoul or Sir Grave Ghastly or the Chiller Double Feature (or the equivalent's outside of the Detroit area, where I grew up) must have seen a few of these. He showed that you can make solid, inventive, entertaining and, at times, even lyrical (The Masque of the Red Death) films, under tight budgets and timeframes. A good story does not require tens of millions of dollars to tell.

Of course, a lot of Corman's work is...well...just entertaining. In fact, most of his work is just entertaining. And, perhaps it is just nostalgia for my childhood, now fading into the mists of the past, that make me remember these films (and still enjoy watching them; a month doesn't go by without me watching something that Corman had a hand in) so fondly.

Whatever the case, Corman is a good storyteller and filmmaker, a man who obviously loves making movies. And, today, he turns 80. Happy birthday and thanks for all the thrills and chills, Mr. Corman.

70s Homage Or Gore-Porn: The Devil's Rejects

2006-04-05T02:33:00.000-05:00

I love 70s horror movies. Films like The Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, and so on, are masterpieces of 'guerilla' horror films, gritty, innovative and, often, full of layers of story-telling and symbolism. Plus, they just scare the crap out of me.

Apparently, they did the same for Rob Zombie. He has made two movies that were billed as a horror-fanboy's homage to the films he grew up loving. His first film - House of 1000 Corpses - was pretty bad. Kind of like an artsy version of Tourist Trap or The Funhouse (in that the horror is more than a bit surreal). Basically, Zombie tried to throw in a lot of visual flash in the service of a thin story. A few moments resonate (there is a scene in which Zombie has slow-mo crane mounted pullback from a police officer with a gun to his head, that is an effective "edge of the seat" moment, but these are few and far between.

His sequel, The Devil's Rejects, is much better, although not great. The film takes place a month after the first movie and follows the exploits of four members of the "Firefly" clan - Mother, Baby, Otis and Captain Spaulding. William Forsythe is the other main character, as a sheriff whose brother fell victim to the Fireflys in the first film. And, although much of the screen time is taken up by Baby, Otis and Captain Spaulding (Mother, overplayed by Leslie Easterbrook replacing Karen Black, is in police custody - and then dead - for all but the first few moments of the movie), it is Forsythe's character who is the real only "real" person in the movie. Starting as a dedicated, if brutal, police officer, his exposure to the primal evil of the Fireflys and his grief over the death of his brother pushes him into descending to the level of his enemies.

The strong points of the movie are solid performances by Forsythe, Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Bill Moseley (very creepy as Otis), Ken Foree (Spaulding's brother Charlie) and Geoffrey Lewis (as ill-fated country singer, and Firefly victim, Roy Sullivan. The cinematography is appropriately washed out for the Texas setting and the camera tricks kept under control this time. The music, a collection of 70s staples, is great and works well with the visuals. And, the plot is coherent, if not very gripping.

The bad...well, the main problem with the movie is an extended sequence in which Otis and Baby terrorize and kill off Sullivan's group. First, there are moments (particularly a nasty sequence in which Priscilla Barnes, playing Roy's wife, is subjected to sexual assault with a 45) that are not "scary uncomfortable" - which is good - but, rather, "distasteful uncomfortable" which is not. Basically, since we know nothing about the victims, we can't really care about them. And, unlike some of the great movies of the 70s, in which the terrors visited on victims are more implied than shown, Zombie insists on visually "spelling out" far too much. Some of the violence is implied, and it is those moments that work best for me. But, some of the things done make little sense. The rape sequence is one of them. We know Otis - wielding the 45 - is a sick, twisted scumbag. And, we have little sense of who the Barnes character is, except for a victim. So, the rape, which should either make the villain seem worse (it does not, given the other things he has already done in the movie or in the first film) or make use feel something for the victim. Since the victim has no "character", however, I just felt kind of sorry for the actress for having to put up with the role.

Finally, while one can feel for the torment that Forsythe's character feels, it is kind of obvious that Zombie sees the Fireflys as the protagonists. And, since they are so vile - and kind of interchangeable, uttering stings of profanities and conducting random, and characterless, acts of violence - one has no sense of connection with them. The best villains make some connection with the audience, even if it is the inhumanness of them. The Shape - Michael Meyers from Halloween - doesn't say a word and is a relentless force of evil. He becomes the faceless, nameless thing that lurks in the closet or under the bed of every child. In Chainsaw, the characters, while as vile as any of the Fireflys, all have distinct characteristics, and treat their victims as meat, not playthings or sextoys. This detachment from any human motive beyond the most basic - to eat - makes them more interesting. One reviewer - I can't remember who - said they were like a dark, extreme version of the pioneers, frontiersmen who existed off the land and did what they had to in order to survive. The Fireflys just come across as garden variety lunatics.

Zombie shows that he is getting better as a filmmaker. And, he obviously has a love for the genre. What he needs to do, in my opinion, is leave behind the Firelfys (pretty easy since they are all dead by the film's end), spend a bit more time on creating characters that the audience can identify with, use the acts of horror more strategically, in order to increase the discomfort of the audience, not make them grow weary of one bloody special effect after another, and, finally, work a bit more on creating memorable villains. The Shape, Leatherface, these are cinematic monsters who will still send chills down people's spines in 50 years. For anyone interested in the genre, they are "milestones" to reach.

That said, The Devil's Rejects is worth a viewing, if only to see some nice cinematography and some good performances in the service of a mediocre story.

technorati: horror movie, the devils rejects

Godzilla: Final Wars

2006-03-27T15:35:00.000-05:00

When I first heard about G:FW I was pretty excited. A biggish budget remake (essentially) of Destroy All Monsters? Lots of cities being wiped out? The Big G taking out some of the iconic Toho monsters, as well as the American 'Zilla-Lite? What's not to like?

Sigh.

Having finally seen the movie, I can say that there are moments that are pure fan-boy glee. Angillas taking out Shanghai is great. Ehbira going up against a team of super powered humans and getting the snot kicked out of it (do giant lobsters have snot?) shows a great deal of flair and hints at what this movie could have been. Rodan's midnight assault on New York City has one of the best visuals from any Godzilla flick, with Rodan perched on a building, silhouetted by the full moon. And, for those of us who really didn't like the American Godzilla movie, there is some payback.

Unfortunately, much of the movie is just dull. Or, perhaps, it would be more accurate to say that much of the movie appears to be from a different, non-Godzilla film. Too much of the film deals with the conflict between aliens and super powered humans...without the aliens being very alien (although the design of the alien's "true face" is pretty neat, in the few moments it is on display) and without the humans being all that interesting. None of the characters are anything other than stereotypes and the inordinate amount of screen time this aspect of the story consumes takes away from what we want to see: Godzilla and a host of other Toho favorites engaging in some serious smackdown.

The film cribs much of its non-Godzilla visuals and ideas from other movies (The Matrix, The X-Men, Independence Day), and even the music is sub-par for a Godzilla film (Sum 41? Ewww...just recycle the score from Destroy All Monsters...please). The man-in-suit effects are well done and the CGI work is well done, so the movie certainly looks good.

But, over all, this film is a disappointment for Godzilla fans and an oddly dull movie from the man who brought us Versus (Ryuhei Kitamura).

Euro-Trash: "Morgane et ses nymphes"

2006-03-27T12:53:00.000-05:00

Also know as 'Slaves Girls of Mogana Le Fay' (1971). The French sounds far less sleazy.

Where to start...well, the movie isn't horror, although there are horrific elements. And it isn't a complete sleaze-fest, although there is frequent nudity (and all of the women are very attractive and not a single silicon breast in sight). I guess I would term this a dream-like fantasy, leavened with generous amounts of gratuitous nudity.

The basic story is: Two friends (Anna and Francoise) are traveling through the French countryside. They catch the eye of 'Gurth', a hunchback who is also the servant of Morgane (aka Morgana Le Fay) who is always looking for new women for his mistress (more on this in a bit). The girls become lost and eventually - and separately - make their way to the castle of Morgane. Much temptation ensues, with Morgane offering each of them eternal youth and beauty, in exchange for their souls and eternal devotion. Those women who have "disappointed" her are turned into crones and consigned to the castle dungeon. Anything more on the plot would be cheating, but the ending is a little bit of a surprise, in that it breaks with the accepted traditions of genre films, although in the context of this film it makes sense.

The story does a serviceable job of presenting the issues of temptation and desire - and the way that everyone has a price that they will readily sell themselves at. The acting is uniformly good (although, this isn't Shakespeare...you're life will not be changed by this movie), with Dominique Delpierre, the actress playing Morgane, particularly good at projecting a cold sensuality. This might be a mystical castle full of lovely young ladies, but the most powerful emotions on display are neither love nor lust; they are fear and envy.

Of course, the movie was made on a very low budget, and it shows. The interiors of Morgane's castle - which, I believe are a mix of location and studio sets - is far too confined for what should be 'fairy castle.' At one point Morgane offers show Francoise how to use magic to build a castle of ice. That is more along the lines of what Morgane's castle should be like, not a few tiny rooms and a crypt. And one of the sex scenes was pretty obviously shot a different time, with actresses not otherwise in the film and then inserted, in order to up the flesh quota, something that I think was not just gratuitous (I have no problem with gratuitous nudity), but is unnecessary. Oh, and there is a long (well, it seems long) "interpretive" dance at one point that...well...let's just say the women performing the dance had best not quit their day jobs.

Finally, So, if female nudity and faux-lesbian antics don't offend you, you can get past the limitations of the budget, and you don't mind a slow, dreamlike plot, than this film has a fair amount to offer.

technorati: Morgane et ses nymphes, eurotrash